Anna Soubry: I wonder whether my hon. Friend could help, as there is growing concern about the use of Twitter in the ways described, but for other criminal offences, what actions are the Government taking to make sure that people are not allowed to hide behind their own anonymity when they tweet or use the internet in this way, which is to commit a criminal offence?

Jenny Chapman: The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is no longer in his place and that is a shame, as he and I have rather a lot in common. For example, we both used to work for Asda, where we were told that the quality of a department can be judged on how it performs when the boss is away. Today, we have had at least five elegantly given “Don’t knows” from Ministers. Let us see whether Minister can answer this: does he know, and can he explain, why a written answer from his Department shows that almost 20% fewer inmates completed drug treatment courses in prisons last year than did two years ago?

Debate resumed (Order,  9 May ),
	Question again  proposed ,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
	Most Gracious Sovereign,
	We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

William Hague: Our Government’s foreign policy has two principal aims: to respond to urgent challenges and crises in ways that promote Britain’s national interest and our democratic values, including human rights, poverty reduction and conflict prevention, and to equip our country to be a safe, prosperous and influential nation for the long term. To do that, given the scale of the economic changes that we are seeing in the world’s economic landscape, we are expanding British diplomacy beyond Europe and north America, even at a time of tight resources. We are forging new connections with new and emerging powers while maintaining our traditional alliances and our role in international institutions. We are intensifying efforts to promote British exports and attract inward investments, with strong early results. In 2011, British goods exports to India increased by 37%, to Indonesia by 44%, to Colombia by 35%, while British exports as a whole last year increased by nearly £50 billion.

William Hague: No. I want to list them to the House.
	In Africa we have reopened an embassy in Côte d’Ivoire and a new embassy in South Sudan; we are reopening our embassy in Madagascar, which should never have been closed; we are opening an embassy in Liberia; and we have set aside funds to open an embassy in Somalia as soon as circumstances permit. We have opened a new embassy in strategically important Kyrgyzstan, and we are establishing a new honorary consul network for economic and commercial diplomacy in Turkey.
	In Latin America we have already opened a new consulate in the north of Brazil; we are reopening our embassy in El Salvador, closed in 2003; and on top of that we are strengthening many links with the people of Latin America, with an agreement for example to welcome 10,000 Brazilian students and researchers to British institutions by 2014. I stress that this focus on stronger ties in Latin America goes hand in hand with our absolute commitment to the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to self-determination and to develop their own economy.

Alec Shelbrooke: My right hon. Friend has done a huge amount in his time as Foreign Secretary to go to countries throughout the world and to reinvigorate the Foreign Office, which was sidelined by the previous Government. Indeed, under the Blair Government the Foreign Office was seen more as a nuisance than as a help, but will my right hon. Friend outline to the House some of the countries that he has been to which have not been visited by a Foreign Secretary in a great many years?

Julian Lewis: I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary has raised the case of Yuliya Tymoshenko. What measures are the Government taking, and what representations are they making, about that appalling mistreatment and breach of someone’s human rights?

Douglas Alexander: It is not the Labour party’s position that troops should be withdrawn by the end of this year. We want a co-ordinated approach. I understand that the discussions within NATO reflect the fact that some countries have already unilaterally announced that they are going to withdraw, with France saying that it will withdraw troops by the end of this year, the Americans talking about the end of the 2013 fighting season and the British Government holding to the position of having a NATO transition by the end of 2014. I hope that there will be greater clarity on taking a genuinely co-ordinated approach because if one has the opportunity to see, as I have, the work that British troops are doing in Helmand, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which American combat operations could cease in July, August or September of 2013 and Britain could maintain its current presence in central Helmand after that.
	In the same way that we have been able to benefit from a strong bipartisan approach to the Government’s conduct in relation to Libya, I hope that we can continue to speak with one voice in the House on Iran, about which the Foreign Secretary said more this afternoon. The threat
	that Iran poses to Israel, to the wider stability of the region and to international security as a whole is real and deeply concerning, and it warrants urgent and concerted diplomatic efforts. We are clear that our objective in Iran is a change of policy, not a change of regime, and we support the steps taken by the Government to introduce and impose strict sanctions on the regime. However, I would welcome more clarification from the Minister in summing up than the Foreign Secretary was able to offer on the issue of providing insurance for ships carrying Iranian oil. There were many words, but not many answers. Given the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, I think that oil prices are a material consideration in determining the timing on when Britain chooses to impose sanctions on Iran. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm where the balance of authority on this lies within Government and whether this is a decision being led by the Treasury or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office because many allies and many in the international community will have been troubled by the Foreign Secretary’s remarks. If some of the reports—they are only reports—are to be believed that Britain is one of the back markers and that this is being driven by a view from within the Treasury, that would be of great concern to Members on both sides of the House.
	More broadly, we all welcome the fact that the next meeting of the international community—the P5 plus 1 process—will take place in Baghdad on 23 May. However, previous negotiation rounds have too often started in earnest and ended in frustration. The stakes are too high for that to be allowed to happen again. We must be clear about what we are seeking from the talks, and I would welcome a little more clarity from the Minister on what the British Government are looking for at Baghdad beyond the 20% enrichment issue that the Foreign Secretary shared with the House a few moments ago. This is delicate but vital work and we must not allow misjudged rhetoric to inflame or hinder vital diplomatic efforts. Let us be candid: if this debate had taken place three months ago, it would have been dominated by the threat of a potential strike on Iran. Since then, thankfully, the Iranians have signalled that they might be willing to make some compromises, and senior elements of the Israeli security establishment have signalled that they would be uncomfortable with a strike any time soon.
	A negotiation path has now been opened up and the UK has a key role to play within it, but as surely as the temperature on this issue has dropped in recent weeks, so it could rise again in coming weeks. There may well be voices claiming that negotiations have stalled and that military action is therefore required immediately. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will be unyielding in its commitment to advancing the case for negotiations as a diplomatic settlement in the immediate months ahead? To assist the negotiations, all options must remain on the table, but we are firm in our view that this opportunity must be seized by all sides so that military action can be avoided.
	Let me address the pressing issue of Europe and the eurozone crisis.

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the salience of Zimbabwe. In that, of course, we are as one. I had the opportunity in recent weeks to meet Morgan Tsvangirai when he visited the United Kingdom and was able to emphasise on behalf of my party our continuing interest, concern and deep worries about some of the developments that endure within Zimbabwe. When I was in the Foreign Office and had the opportunity to meet Morgan Tsvangirai long before he took office in the Zimbabwean Government, there was a constant tension between Britain’s capacity to make public statements and its capacity to exercise private influence in relation to the South Africans. The Minister may be able to comment on that. We were constantly aware that if we made some of the statements that we were minded to make in relation to Zimbabwe, we were vulnerable to them being used to offer succour, encouragement and a propaganda advantage to Mugabe. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government are following a path of quiet diplomacy and making sure that the regional leaders who bear a heavy responsibility—principally South Africa, as my hon. Friend suggests—recognise their heavy responsibility as we anticipate the potential for further violence and intimidation ahead of further elections in the country.
	On the pressing issue of Europe and the eurozone crisis, there are many in the House who would like any discussion of Europe to focus on the question of an in/out referendum. If we are to believe the blogs and the briefings, our part-time Chancellor of the Exchequer is spending more time considering the electoral implications of such an approach than he appears to be spending on helping to solve the eurozone crisis that is engulfing parts of the continent. Let me be very clear about this. Opposition Members believe that Britain should now be focused on jobs and growth and leading the recovery in Europe so that many millions of British jobs that depend on Europe are secured, even in these turbulent times.
	Within the eurozone itself, forecasters are predicting that Spain, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and Belgium would all miss the EU deficit target next year, as well as Ireland, Greece and Portugal, which are not expected to be able to comply with the terms of the EU bail-out programmes. The International Monetary Fund is forecasting shrinking economies and rising debt. No wonder firms are reluctant to invest, with such bleak prospects. An austerity-only economics—the voodoo economics of our time—driven by 23 out of the 29 Governments of Europe being held by the centre right, has been shown to have failed both here at home and abroad in Europe, yet have this Government shown themselves to be worthy of this moment? I would argue, far from it.
	When British exporters and firms desperately need influence, the Prime Minister last December chose isolation instead. Why did he make that choice? Perhaps he was following the advice that was attributed to the Foreign Secretary on the eve of that fateful summit:
	“If it’s a choice between keeping the euro together or keeping the Conservative Party together, it’s in the national interest to keep the Conservative Party together.”
	But at what cost has this political party bargain been struck? They claim that they used their veto to stop a treaty that would harm British interests, but even the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not present in the House today, begged to differ. He said:
	“The language gets confusing. Veto suggests something was stopped. It was not stopped.”
	What of the so-called protections that the Government secured for British jobs and for British business? The Foreign Secretary was totally silent today on the fact that not one of the measures included in the fiscal compact would have applied to Britain, and still the Government are unable to point to a single extra protection that their so-called veto managed to secure for Britain’s financial services. But he need not take our word for it. It was no less than Lord Heseltine who summed it up so well in the week of the summit when he stated, “You can’t protect the interests of the City by floating off into the middle of the Atlantic.” We now know that this is not a Tory party following in the tradition of Macmillan, who applied to join the EEC, Heath, who took us into Europe, Thatcher, who signed the Single European Act, or Major, who signed the Maastricht treaty. This is a Conservative party being followed and not being led by those on the Government Front Bench.

Douglas Alexander: I am flattered and touched by the interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in my record as Minister for Europe. If he had been in the House at the time, he would have known that there was broad bipartisan support for the accession of the eastern European countries into the EU. If he is respectfully suggesting, seven years on, that somehow there would not be consequences for the European budget from the accession of 10 former eastern European countries, I would respectfully differ. If he wants a job for reading out the Whips’ briefing, he has to work a little harder than that.

Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1984, Britain’s contribution to the EEC was £656 million? Under Margaret Thatcher, it rose by 1990 to £2.54 billion. It went up 400% under Margaret Thatcher. God bless her.

Douglas Alexander: I have been generous and I am keen to make a little progress.
	Alongside the welcome measures set out in the Bill to allow for the establishment of a eurozone-only bail-out fund, further steps are needed if we are to have hope of a genuine recovery in Europe, including a real capital
	lift for the European Investment Bank, new infrastructure bonds and a comprehensive review of how EU structural funds operate.
	Before I leave the subject of Europe, let me ask the Foreign Secretary another question that curiously he omitted from his lengthy remarks today. The Government defined themselves in opposition in the early days of government by their commitment to publish a White Paper on the repatriation of powers from the EU back to Britain. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will update the House on when we can expect that White Paper to be published. With great flourish, he announced another White Paper was due to be published on the overseas territories, but he curiously omitted any mention of a White Paper in relation to repatriation. The last time he mentioned it in the House was November 2011, when, in a written answer to me in February, he said:
	“The Government’s stated intention is to examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences. That review does not have a pre-determined outcome.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 366W.]
	Can he at least confirm to the House whether it has a pre-determined time frame. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will be able to share that information with the House.
	If there is one example of where the European Union could serve to amplify Britain’s voice and maximise our influence, surely it is in the middle east and north Africa in the wake of the extraordinary events we have witnessed over the past 18 months. In the early part of last year we saw protests spread, from Morocco in the west to Iran in the east, with the success of one set of demonstrators giving energy and inspiration to others. But the Arab spring has not been uniform in its impact, and nor are its outcomes guaranteed. We see continuing and very different challenges in countries as diverse as Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain. In the case of Syria, I can assure the House that there is bipartisan support for the continued efforts the Foreign Secretary spoke of to stop the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on its own people.
	At a time when the waves of change are sweeping through the region, it is surely a matter of deep regret to us all that progress on the negotiations in Israel and the Palestinian territories remains frozen. Our shared goal across the House is to secure a universally recognised Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state. The international community and the majority of Israelis and Palestinians share a common view of what the principles of a final agreement should be based upon: land swaps around the 1967 borders, Jerusalem as a shared capital, and a fair settlement for refugees.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Before the shadow Secretary of State leaves the question of strategy, will he at least acknowledge the excellent work of the stabilisation unit in many parts of the world today, and the role of the building stability overseas strategy, which is widely acknowledged as being something that we can all support. It is setting very high standards and giving the UK some credit in many places where there has been conflict?

Joan Ruddock: I will give way, although I am nearly at the end.

Michael McCann: I want to focus on two issues: the Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of our gross national income on international development, and the continuing threat to world security that is emanating from the middle east. I serve on the International Development Select Committee, along with five Conservative colleagues and four other Labour Members. The Committee is chaired by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). Each of us has seen at first hand the despair resulting from poverty in the developing world. We have also seen the acclaimed work of the Department for International Development, and we are all committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid, as is each of our political parties.
	However, it says a lot about the Government’s priorities that the issue of House of Lords reform has been placed ahead of the commitment to legislating for that 0.7% expenditure. What puzzles me most about the decision is that the commitment was in all of the main three parties’ manifesto commitments to the electorate at the last general election. One would have thought that, after undertaking an independent analysis of those manifestos, the Government would pick one policy that would unite this Chamber rather than any of the myriad of issues on which we choose to disagree. Alas, they did not.
	There is one reason not to give aid—the philosophy of looking after our own interests first. That is a reasonable position to take if someone has amnesia and is willing to forget the wealth Britain has extracted from across the globe. Everyone, however, can point to a reason to give aid—that it is the right thing to do and will make the world a more secure place for our country, as the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said. International development aid will also save lives and put more children into school, while creating new markets for the future.
	We can point to the fact that in the 1950s, Korea was a war-torn aid recipient. It is now the 13th largest economy in the world, the second-fastest growing economy
	in the OECD and an aid donor. That single statement confirms that, despite the complexities of aid, despite multiple cultures and despite the challenges ranging from clean water to conflict and corruption, aid does work. Any remaining doubting Thomases out there should consider that Korean investment and exports are worth £8 billion a year to the UK and are set to increase by £500 million year on year as a result of the South Korea-European Union free trade agreement.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend talks about doubting Thomases. What would he say to people who ask, “Why do we give aid to a country like India when it has nuclear weapons?”?

Michael McCann: I am happy to answer that. The International Development Select Committee was in India last year, so it knows that, as the Secretary of State for International Development would confirm, 800 million people who live there are surviving on less than $2 a day, which is an important point. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend asks from a sedentary position why it has nuclear capability. Well, any country faced with threats on both sides of its borders is likely to think that nuclear weapons are a necessary safeguard. I saw some of the poorest people on the planet when we visited India, and I do not believe that we should resile from giving money to that nation.
	I was saying that we generate £8 billion a year from South Korea and that this will grow by £500 million every year, and I was making the point that the UK aid budget currently sits at £7.8 billion a year. Some might legitimately argue that legislation is irrelevant because the money will be spent anyway. Some might say that the manifesto commitment was ducked by coalition parties because of the fear of a backlash from some of those sitting on the blue side of the Government Benches. That commitment should not have been ducked. Not only did all three main parties make that commitment in their manifestos but, even more importantly, our commitment sent a message around the world—that the UK was prepared to be bold, which could encourage others to be equally bold and to walk in our footsteps to reach the 0.7% figure. As the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, we have been trying to reach that commitment for the last 40 years.
	“A single event can shape our lives or change the course of history.”
	Those are the words of the award-winning author, Deepak Chopra. We should heed those words rather than those of my e-mail friend, Mr Ronald Hunter, who Members will know sends us regular e-mail correspondence.
	Just as we face the challenge of tackling poverty across the globe, so we still face unresolved tensions in the middle east. There is no other subject that can lead to such a swift loss of perspective in debate. It has the ability to unite those who do not normally see eye to eye, while simultaneously disuniting those who normally do. I should register the fact that I am the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel. Holding that title, however, does not make me oblivious or ignorant of, or unsympathetic to, the Palestinian cause. On the contrary, I support it. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Glenamara who, sadly, passed away recently. As the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I and all those we work with owe a great debt of gratitude
	to Edward Short. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his steadfast support for both Israel and LFI over many years. I never had the pleasure of meeting Edward Short, but from talking to colleagues it was clear he made a big and impressive impact and will leave a long legacy. As Chief Whip under Harold Wilson, he fought hard to marshal a majority of just five, commanding respect; and now that we are, regrettably, in opposition, we rely heavily on Short money, which Lord Glenamara first proposed, a vital innovation for allowing Oppositions to hold Governments to account.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am pleased to hear that, because at the moment it feels like there is real tension in the Government about where climate change sits, as the Chancellor clearly sees it as an obstacle to his economic development plans and there is not much of a fight back.
	The absence of such matters in the Queen’s Speech is a tragedy, because there are so many opportunities to pursue a green agenda at the same time as pursuing jobs and a stable economy. Indeed, by investing in a green economy, which is far more labour-intensive than the fossil fuel economy it replaces, we can get those jobs and get the economy stable again.
	Hon. Members will know that climate change is already affecting many of the poorest communities around the world, undermining their livelihoods through changes in temperature and rainfall patterns and through the increased frequency and intensity of floods and droughts. It has been estimated that climate change is already responsible for about 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300 million people, according to the first comprehensive study of the human impact of global warming from Kofi Annan’s Global Humanitarian Forum.
	Although the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on the global south, this argument is not just about poorer people in far flung places. Increasingly, extreme weather events are happening much closer to home as well, such as the 2007 floods in Britain, which saw the largest ever civil emergency response since the second world war. From our riverside location at Westminster, we should perhaps take comfort from the fact that the Thames barrier is being prepared to cope with the sea level rise of 1.9 metres that is being projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the full range of its climate scenarios. Frankly, I am alarmed that we are having to consider such a sea level rise and that such measures are not being planned elsewhere.
	The truth is that growing recognition of climate change as a serious threat to our national security, our economy and international development is not resulting in commensurate action domestically or internationally. What in the Queen’s Speech could help us? The new energy Bill, if it were significantly more ambitious than proposed, could play a role. Investment in major power infrastructure today will be with us for decades to come, but there is a real risk that rather than the “secure, clean and affordable” electricity system that we have been
	promised by the Government, we are more likely to end up with an insecure, dirty and expensive one. To avoid that, we need four crucial elements to be introduced into the electricity market reform proposals.
	First, and most importantly, the energy Bill must contain a clear and absolute commitment to decarbonising electricity generation by 2030. That is not a radical green proposal, but is based on the advice from the Committee on Climate Change. I hope that the PM will ensure that that happens, given his own explanation of the crucial role of the committee. He said that it exists to
	“take the politics out of climate change and show our intention to get to grips with the problem.”
	Here is a perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate exactly that.
	The second thing missing from the EMR proposals to date is the vast untapped potential of energy saving. We could argue all night about the various costs of low-carbon technologies, but I think that those on both sides of the House would agree that it is often a lot cheaper to save energy in the first place. The energy Bill must therefore introduce mechanisms to equalise support for demand reduction and energy saving, such as a feed-in tariff for energy efficiency. That should be the priority, not planning to subsidise EDF’s nuclear-generated electricity to the tune of £115 per megawatt hour. That is the level of subsidy that would be necessary based on EDF’s recent announcement of a new £7 billion price tag per nuclear power station. Let us remember too that subsidising nuclear power would fly in the face of the coalition’s promise not to provide taxpayer subsidy for nuclear. As the City analyst Peter Atherton has succinctly concluded, the only way that new nuclear could be built is
	“if the construction risk was transferred to the taxpayer”.
	I am extremely concerned that that is exactly what the Government will try to do.

Caroline Lucas: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and that is yet another hidden cost of nuclear. It is not expressed up front and therefore when comparisons are made between different energy sources the price of nuclear, which would be a lot more expensive if the truth were told, is artificially deflated.
	Like nuclear, an obsession with gas is another expensive distraction from a decisive and rapid shift to an efficient sustainable power system. The Chancellor has said that gas is cheap, but he is wrong. It might have been cheap 10 years ago but it certainly is not today. His Government’s own figures show that gas has been the main cause of higher energy bills over recent years and organisations such as Ofgem are all saying that gas prices are likely to continue to rise. Yes, gas can be a bridging technology and play a role in meeting peak demand, but the energy Bill must categorically rule out a new dash for gas both to keep energy costs for householders and businesses down and to meet carbon targets.
	A strong emissions performance standard is essential, yet what we have so far from the Government is utterly inadequate. The Committee on Climate Change has also warned that allowing unabated gas-fired generation, as this Government plan, from new plant right through to 2045 carries a huge risk that there will be far too much gas-fired generation at the expense of low-carbon investment.
	With fracking, huge questions remain over the impacts on groundwater pollution, health and air pollution, as well as earthquakes. Moreover, evidence from the Tyndall Centre indicates that the exploitation of even just a fraction of the UK’s shale gas reserves would simply be incompatible with tackling climate change.

Pauline Latham: It is always a delight to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is a master of her brief and is completely passionate about her subject, as she has shown again today.
	I want to apologise to the House for leaving the Chamber earlier and missing the last two minutes of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech. Thirty-nine of my constituents were having tea on the terrace and were leaving at 5.30 pm. I apologise for the discourtesy and also for missing some of the earlier speeches, but those constituents were from the village I live in so I felt that I had to see them.
	I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development on the fact that we are increasing our funding on international development aid from 0.56% to 0.7% from next year. I am delighted that we are doing that. Lots of people have lobbied me to ask why that is not enshrined in legislation and commenting that we cannot guarantee it will happen, but I believe the Secretary
	of State and the Government that we will deliver the scale of funding that we have committed to achieve next year.
	That funding will do much for the people who need it most—the poorest people in the world—but there are one or two worries about the amount and speed at which the Department for International Development is going to have to scale up spending. I hope that DFID is recruiting people from a business background—I am sure it is—because much of the money will fund new start-up businesses and entrepreneurs and go towards skilling people up so that they can do that. The only way that people in poor countries can get out of poverty is by having jobs and earning money for themselves. It is no good just giving them a handout every time—we have to give them a hand up by helping them to invest in their own skills and businesses so that they can provide for themselves and their family as well as employing others. That is also the way that this country will get out of this recession. It is important that people in those countries are able to gain skills and come out of poverty, and establishing such a system would be the quickest way of doing that.
	I would also like more funding to help women in developing countries. Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to meet some women from Afghanistan and Pakistan through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Those women are very worried that funding is not getting through to women in Afghanistan and they want some ring-fenced money to help women secure their own future. They feel that at the moment it is going to men and is disappearing. A recent report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact found that money is leaching and that no mechanism in DFID is able to track that money. I am sure that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will have seriously considered that report because we have to stop money disappearing. It has to go to the right places.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention and I look forward to the conclusions of the report with great interest, because, as I said, our neighbouring countries have been considering this problem for a number of years. Given the national priorities at play, they are keen to ensure stability in the region, which necessitates ecological, economic, diplomatic and defence co-operation and understanding. All this explains why the countries adjoining the Arctic are taking the issue very seriously. Norway, Denmark, Russia, Canada and the United States have all developed specific policy priorities for the high north and Arctic. Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands consider this a top priority, as do nations such as Sweden and Finland.
	Our neighbours’ multilateral engagement is extremely serious and they are working closely together. This has happened for decades through the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Nordic Council, and has recently been widened to include enhanced bilateral and multilateral relations with the independent Baltic republics. Nordic co-operation is broad and embraces areas such as environment, health, energy supply, research, culture, education, information technology, research and business advancement. A specific Arctic co-operation programme works together with countries in the Arctic Council, which was formed in 1998 with the signing of the Ottawa declaration. An additional important consideration relates to regional security, where finely tuned defence priorities provide the capabilities that secure stability and aid the civil power across the massive area that constitutes the high north and Arctic. Our neighbours are scaling up their infrastructural capabilities in the region.
	Despite different relations to treaty organisations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Nordic and Baltic nations are pushing ahead as never before. This includes shared basing, training and procurement arrangements. For nations such as Norway and Denmark in particular, deployability and reach within the high north and Arctic is a key consideration. This is not the case for the UK.
	Recently the UK Government mapped out its future priorities in a strategic defence review, a weighty 75-page report that does not mention the northern dimension once, underlining that it is not an important focus for Whitehall. In addition, UK defence cuts to infrastructure and capabilities in Scotland mean that we will have a diminished ability directly to co-operate with our neighbours. Damaging decisions, including the scrapping of fixed-wing Nimrod search and rescue aircraft, are at the top of that list. Air force operations are ending from two out of three of the northern air bases in the UK. No appropriate conventional sea-going vessels are based
	in Scotland at all. The recent arrival of a Russian carrier group around the Admiral Kuznetsov in the Moray Firth off my constituency necessitated royal naval interdiction craft being sent from the south of England to the north of Scotland, underlining that gap in capability.

Angus Robertson: I am running out of time and I have already given way.
	Current UK defence plans include the withdrawal of specialised amphibious personnel from the east coast of Scotland, while there are no helicopters or transport aircraft whatever. Even a cursory glance at the inventory of our neighbours shows their broader capability across all three services.
	Scotland cannot afford to take that approach. With preparations under way for the independence referendum, it is reassuring that these regional developments are influencing the thinking of the SNP Government in Scotland. At least that consideration has been given there in contrast to that in Whitehall, which is sadly lacking. First Minister Salmond has visited Norway on numerous occasions—indeed, he has been there this week—to discuss common issues, including the planned electricity interconnector and growth in the renewables sector. In contrast, no UK Prime Minister has made an official visit to our closest North sea neighbour in 25 years, which tells its own story about UK priorities.
	Constitutional developments in Scotland and significant environmental changes offer a real opportunity and imperative properly to engage with our wider geographic region. Our neighbours to the north and east have already made a good start and work constructively together. We need to join them and play our part. The UK has opted out of a serious approach: we should not. If the UK does not do so, a sovereign Scottish Government will do so following a yes vote in the 2014 independence referendum.

Denis MacShane: Britain’s foreign policy can be summed up in two words: unsplendid isolation. The Foreign Secretary is an observer of world events, rather than a shaper of them. He talked about new embassies being opened, but they will not be staffed by trained British diplomats who come back here after a short term abroad as a young diplomat to help inform our community of foreign policy. Instead, we now have
	portakabin foreign policy, with small sheds being opened all over the world, but without augmenting our foreign presence. The number of diplomatic posts staffed by British citizens is being cut by up to 250 as a result of the Foreign Secretary’s personnel policies.
	The Foreign Secretary set out his world vision in an interview with The Economist last week. It is based on promoting trade, promoting the broad national interest and protecting British citizens overseas, as he confirmed in his speech earlier. I expect that every holder of his great office from Charles James Fox onward would subscribe to those aims. Every one of Her Majesty’s ambassadors promotes trade, but to do so we need an economy that is growing, open and supported by Ministers. Instead, the Foreign Secretary insulted every exporter over the weekend by telling them to work hard. My business friends in his home town of Rotherham, which I have the honour of representing, have worked harder than any generation of business leaders in our history. They do not need to be patronised and told to work hard. What they need is support so that the cuts to the UK trade promotion work, which Lord Digby Jones discussed with the BBC yesterday, are reversed, because every day that the Foreign Secretary has been in office has seen Britain’s trade balance worsen.
	The Foreign Secretary makes much of the idea that Britain can turn away from our traditional trading partners and engage with emerging powers, yet we export more to Ireland than we do to China, Russia, India and Brazil combined. He is the leader of the Eurosceptic faction in the Cabinet and never misses an opportunity to make a crack about the EU or the problems of the eurozone, as if the double-dip recession pound zone was an example to follow.

Andrew Murrison: It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), whose knowledge of these matters is renowned. I take issue with his remarks about un-splendid isolation, however, because I struggle to reconcile that with his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary’s assertion that the Government’s foreign policy has a hint of imperial delusion. One can either be an isolationist or an imperialist; it is very difficult to be both at the same time.
	I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took some time to describe the problems relating to north Africa and the middle east and, in particular, to identify the challenges in the Sahel region. There is a real risk that, with our interest in things going on elsewhere in the world, we could take our eye off the ball in this troubled region, which could easily become a crucible for insurgency, people trafficking, narcotics and terrorism. The countries of north Africa are well apprised of the dangers of the situation and are most
	keen that the European Union take early action to ensure that the situation in the Sahel does not deteriorate any further.
	The Maghreb is a bulwark against the instability that may well issue forth from the ungoverned spaces of that part of Africa. We have watched with some dismay the deteriorating situation in Mali and in Niger, especially the trouble in the north of Mali as Tuareg insurgents return from military duties in Libya to occupy large swathes of that country, and particularly the area around Timbuktu. That could well act as a catalyst for disruption and dismay in the wider region that might easily have knock-on effects, especially for Algeria and Morocco. Many of us hope sincerely that there will be a rapprochement between Algeria and Morocco and that, in particular, the situation in the Tindouf camps will be resolved without too much further delay. Indeed, the stability of the whole region appears to hinge on the nexus between Rabat and Algiers.

Fabian Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that I can join his group and work with him for the benefit of Anglo-Moroccan relations, which are important to this country and to the Arab world.
	I will concentrate on one major issue that concerns me, which I hope the Government will take up. Indeed, the Government have made their views on it fairly clear, but they need to do more. It is the issue of Tibet.
	Yesterday, I was privileged to be invited to St Paul’s cathedral to hear the address by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, Tenzin Gyatso. He was awarded the prestigious Templeton prize, which is awarded for a person’s spiritual contribution to humanity. It is now 100 years since the birth of the prize’s founder, Sir John Templeton.
	St Paul’s, as Members will know, is a wonderful venue for any ceremonial. To be there in the presence of so many people, but especially the Dalai Lama, and to hear his magnificent speech about compassion, peace and love for all humanity was very uplifting. It made me realise that the attempts by the Chinese Government to bring the Dalai Lama into disrepute, calling him a “splittist” and even, on some occasions, a terrorist, are complete and utter nonsense. We know that this is a man who stands up for peace and love for all humanity. How can the Chinese Government, who have such a poor record of human rights violations, accuse somebody like the Dalai Lama of what they accuse him of? I hope that our Government will put further pressure on the Chinese Government to ensure that the human rights violations all over that country, but especially in Tibet, are brought to an end, or at least brought to public notice.
	I want to draw attention to the case of one individual. His name is Dhondup Wangchen. He was a renowned filmmaker in Tibet until 2008, when he was arrested for making a film about the effect of the Olympics in Beijing on the people of Tibet. It was a modest film, as anybody who has seen it will know, in which the Tibetan people who were interviewed said, “It would be nice if we had a chance to share in the interest and pleasure of watching live sport, especially something as prestigious as the Olympics, but the Government won’t let us because we are Tibetan.” For that film, Dhondup Wangchen was arrested, supposedly tried and imprisoned for eight years. He is still in prison. He is currently suffering from a hepatitis C infection that is damaging his health, and he is being denied the appropriate health care.
	I hope that the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary will bring the case of Dhondup Wangchen to the attention of the Chinese Government, as well as the cases of the many other Tibetans who have been arrested simply for
	supporting the Dalai Lama. It is now a criminal offence in Tibet to put up a portrait of His Holiness. One does not have to do anything but put up a portrait that is then seen. That is why many Tibetans now hide his portrait in a cupboard or somewhere else where it cannot be seen by spies and people who are there on behalf of the Chinese Administration.
	We know what the Dalai Lama has written. All that he has ever asked for is true autonomy for Tibet. No longer is the argument put forward that Tibet wants to be a proud, autonomous, independent nation once again. I think that many Tibetans wish that that was the case, but they so revere the Dalai Lama that they would not deny or contradict his “middle way” approach. That is something that the British Government should support.
	In 2006, just six years ago this month, I was privileged to be part of the Foreign Affairs Committee delegation that went to Lhasa. It was a fascinating experience. The visit was brought about by the determination of my colleague on the Committee at the time, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). He persisted in arguing that we should be allowed to go, in the face of Foreign Office resistance and, of course, resistance from the Chinese Government. But go we did. There were five of us, the others being my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and two former Members, Andrew Mackinlay and Richard Younger-Ross.
	We were accompanied by 10 people from Beijing, if I recall correctly, to ensure that we did not stray off the path that the Chinese Administration had set down for us. None the less, Andrew Mackinlay and I managed to escape our minders one afternoon, after three days in Lhasa, to explore the Barkhor markets and talk to people, although they were scared to talk to foreigners. That gave us a true insight into the way in which the Chinese Government are trying to make the people of Tibet Chinese; the way in which Han Chinese people are being encouraged to move into the new housing that is being built in Lhasa; the way in which the Tibetan language is demoted, even for Tibetan children in the schools in that country; and the way in which nomads are being forced to live in fixed accommodation, no longer able to pursue the lifestyle and culture that they have had for centuries. The culture of Tibet—its costume, its cultural festivities, its celebrations and the very faith of Buddhism—is being eroded in the name of standardisation and Chinese-ification.
	Our Government need to stand up and speak louder for the future and self-determination of the Tibetan people before it is too late. My fear, and that of right hon. and hon. Members who support the Tibetan cause, many of whom were at St Paul’s cathedral yesterday, is that in 20 or 50 years’ time, there will be a Tibetan diaspora but no Tibetan people still living in Tibet. That would be a tragedy.
	Yesterday, His Holiness the Dalai Lama acknowledged his debt to the people and Government of India, who welcomed him when he was forced into exile in 1959, where he has been ever since in Dharamsala. Each year, with the support of the Tibet Society, the all-party Tibet group, which I chair, tries to organise a trip to Dharamsala and McLeod Ganj for parliamentarians to meet the brilliantly organised Tibetan Government-in-exile
	and see their Parliament, their artistic and cultural organisations and their political prisoners’ organisation, from which we hear the most harrowing tales. Best of all, we see the Tibetan children’s village, where children who have walked across the Himalayas to escape the oppression of the Chinese Government and Communist party, often unaccompanied by their parents, come into India and are welcomed with open arms. They are supported by many western and eastern people, many of whom come from Japan. It is so uplifting to see how those children are looked after.
	I do not want to go into the debate that we will continue to have about the rights and wrongs of what is happening between Israel and the Palestinian people, but the director of the Tibetan children’s village went to Israel to see how the kibbutzim were managed and organised. When I was last there, I could not help but think that the village was run along the lines of a kibbutz. It seemed very much like it. I said to the director, “This seems strange. Have you been to Israel?” He said, “Yes we have. We went there to see what a kibbutz was like, and we put their principles into practice here so that our children could benefit from collective living and a co-operative upbringing together.” Their parents are often stuck in Lhasa or other towns and villages in Tibet.
	Tibet will die if we do not continue to support it. We should not be afraid of the Chinese bullies. I was very pleased that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister were there yesterday to meet His Holiness at St Paul’s cathedral, and I congratulate them. However, I am also aware, as many Members will be if they read this morning’s papers, that the Chinese Government expressed in the strongest possible terms their anger at the fact that our Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister had had the temerity to meet the Dalai Lama. We must stand up against this bullying.
	When the Foreign Affairs Committee was in Beijing, the Chinese people’s foreign affairs committee threatened us with all sorts of retribution if we visited Taiwan. We were told it would have far-reaching damaging effects on the relationship between the UK and China. We went to Taiwan, and no damaging effect was felt at all. We must stand up to these bully-boy tactics, stand up for Tibet and stand up for the message of peace, love and compassion that His Holiness the Dalai Lama continues to put forth without fear or favour.

Jeremy Corbyn: When we debate foreign affairs, it is difficult to restrict oneself to a limited number of subjects because there are so many things that one wants to talk about. I will cover two matters: general peace issues and the rights of migrant peoples across the world.
	We heard a long discussion by the Foreign Secretary, who will go to the NATO summit next week in Chicago, on the future of Afghanistan. We should pause for a moment and hold the narrative. This country has spent £17 billion on the war in Afghanistan, which remains extremely poor, extremely corrupt and, to some extent, dominated by drug users, and the streets of our country have not been made any safer. Like many other countries, we have passed a series of anti-terror laws that are draconian to say the least. We have to learn a lesson about what intervention means and what the war on terror, inspired by George Bush in 2002, means for Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole policy narrative that we are following.
	I opposed the war in Afghanistan and strongly opposed the war in Iraq because I could see no good end to them. It was not that I and others who opposed the wars supported the Taliban or Saddam Hussein’s regime. We simply did not believe that western intervention would bring about peace and justice or human rights; it seldom does. Indeed, although the intervention in Libya killed and removed Gaddafi, it has left behind it a series of warring factions, abominable human rights abuses, and lynchings of African people who happened to be living in Libya at the time of the NATO bombardment.
	In the discussion about Iran, I recognise a similar process to the one that we went through in the build-up to the war in Iraq. I hope that the conference that took place in Istanbul and the Baghdad meeting that is due to happen in the near future will bring about some resolution and some contact between the west and Iran. We should read the International Atomic Energy Agency inspection reports carefully because they do not confirm that Iran has nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons grade uranium or plutonium. They confirm that, with the exception of the inspections required under the voluntary supplementary protocol to the non-proliferation treaty, the IAEA has been able to inspect nuclear weapons sites. We should be careful about our approach to the issue.
	As I said in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian Government remain committed to, and a signatory of, the NPT. Indeed, the last NPT review conference envisaged the establishment of a nuclear weapons free middle east—I think that we would all support that. However, that cannot be done within the terms of the NPT; it needs a wider convention. That requires the participation of Israel, which has nuclear weapons, 200 warheads and a delivery system. It is quite capable of using that and threatening somebody else. I hope that the Helsinki meeting is successful and that we move some way towards a nuclear weapons free middle east as a result of it. However, an attack on Iran by Israel, or the continuing assassination of individual scientists in Iran by special forces, are great dangers, just as the deployment of large naval vessels in the strait of Hormuz may spark some sort of conflict.
	I am not here to defend the Iranian Government. I deplore their human rights record and the treatment of ethnic and linguistic minorities, trade unions and religious groups. However, a western attack and a war on Iran will
	not liberate those people. It will kill many people, as has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope that we will not be so stupid as to start yet another war in the middle east, with all the ramifications that that would have.
	Instead, I hope that we will put our efforts into peace and justice in the region, particularly for the Palestinian people. We should recognise that the Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike, which has just ended, is a cri de coeur from those, including children and elected members of parliament, who have been in administrative detention—held without trial—by the Israeli Government. Although it is easy for the friends of Israel to proclaim it to be the only democracy in the whole region, a democracy cannot call itself by that name if it denies the same rights to others through occupation, settlement, the construction of walls or the imprisonment of its elected representatives. I therefore hope that the Government will continue to criticise the settlement policy, and that, above all, the rest of the world recognises what is happening.
	We need to consider our approach to world affairs because we are keen to say that Iran should not have nuclear weapons—I do not think that Iran should have nuclear weapons any more than any other country should—but we have them, and we propose to spend £100 billion on replacing Trident. We also spend 2.6% of our GDP—the highest level in Europe—on defence. Perhaps we should think about reordering some of our priorities and looking at things in a slightly different way.
	In the three and a half minutes left, I want to consider an issue that has not been raised in the debate and is seldom ever raised: the shocking abuse of the human rights of people who try to escape poverty in the poorest parts of the world. There is a flow of migrants from the poorest countries in central and sub-Saharan Africa across the desert to the Canary islands, Libya, Italy, Greece and other countries, and what happens to them is appalling. The numbers who die en route in the Mediterranean and trying to get across the little bit of ocean towards the Canary Islands are truly shocking, as too are the numbers killed in Libya or deported and left in dangerous and harsh conditions.
	It is easy to blame the people traffickers—I have no truck with people traffickers; what they do is absolutely disgusting—and, as a wealthy country in the western world, it is easy for us to condemn migration and see it as a threat, but we are part of the problem. We have allowed the trade policies to develop that have impoverished so much of central and sub-Saharan Africa, and we use xenophobic arguments against people who are merely pleading to survive, to get to a place where they can work and to send resources and money home to their families.
	Across the Atlantic, exactly the same thing is happening in parallel. The very poorest people from central America—from El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala—are fleeing through Mexico to the USA. They get across the border into Mexico, they ride freight trains, they are pulled off the freight trains, they are killed or kidnapped, and their families back home are forced to pay a ransom to the gang that did the kidnapping. I shall quote from a report I was given last week from the Campaign for the Right to Migrate Free from Violence, when Bishop Vera of Saltillo in Mexico was visiting this country. I had a long discussion with him. I quote from Daniel, a 20-year-old, who said:
	“Eight men came and took us off the train, beat us… right nearby were six agents of the Federal Police, in their patrol cars,
	who didn’t do anything… we screamed and asked them to help us, but they didn’t do anything… Inside the house”,
	in which they held us,
	“there was blood everywhere and lots of flies; there were about thirty kidnapped people there, six were women and they suffered so much, because from the time we arrived all of the kidnappers raped them, they raped them whenever they wanted, always right in front of us”.
	It goes on to describe how people were killed in front of this young man.
	These people are also fleeing poverty, and trying to escape violence and to seek justice in the world. We need to give a thought to the plight of migrant people all over the world. When they get to Europe or the USA, they clean our floors and offices, they pick the fruit, they work in the farms and factories, and they sustain the economic wealth of western Europe and north America. They are contributing to our wealth. It is up to us to recognise that they, too, deserve justice and human rights.

Jeremy Lefroy: At a time of great difficulty, it is always tempting to look inwards. However, it is now more important than ever to look outwards, because it is by engaging constructively with the world that we will see growth in our economy and security for our people, and help others to tackle grinding poverty and the effects of climate change. I therefore welcome the Government’s focus on exports, on inward and outward investment, on expanding the UK’s diplomatic network—I should like to echo the praise for the work of our diplomatic missions around the world—and on well-targeted development aid.
	Figures releases today show that UK exports—that is, exports of goods and services combined—have increased by 17% since March 2010 to £41.8 billion. Significantly, exports of goods to non-EU countries have risen from £10.8 billion in September 2010 to £13.1 billion in March this year. Almost all the recent increase involves exports of goods to non-EU countries. It is worth pointing out that six of the 10 fastest growing countries in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa—many of them are members of the Commonwealth—and it is to those countries that we should look for our growth in the next two to three decades.
	British companies have been working very hard against fierce competition, but we cannot rest there. Britain has a lower percentage of small and medium-sized enterprises involved in exports than our rivals, and we need to help those companies to compete across the globe. Export Credits Guarantee Department cover has improved since last year, but I would urge the Government to ensure that our companies have access to the same cover as that enjoyed by their competitors in Germany and the Netherlands. At the moment, we fall considerably short of that goal.
	One factor that is not quantifiable but is nevertheless significant for the UK’s export performance is the UK’s diplomatic network. A recent article in The Economist stated:
	“Diplomats have been told to focus on three objectives: defending national security, looking after British citizens abroad and—above all—boosting prosperity by promoting British business. If Britain moves quickly, it can be the first European country to spot the vital need for long-haul, bilateral diplomacy, Mr Hague suggests.”
	The Foreign Secretary is right. Too often, we have been complacent or slow off the mark, and lost traditional markets or failed to take the new opportunities, yet Britain is opening eight new embassies in Asia by 2015, at a time when others are cutting back, and despite a smaller budget.

Jeremy Lefroy: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that many countries that do not have traditional links with Britain are seeking to join the Commonwealth? Rwanda is already a member as is Mozambique and countries such as Burundi want to forge links with the Commonwealth.

Kate Hoey: Absolutely, and that shows the strength and power of the relationship, which does not bind countries into a centralised you-will-all-do-the-same-thing approach but welcomes and supports them as individual countries. Let us not forget that the Commonwealth’s membership includes two of the world’s largest 10 economies—the UK and India—and two members of the G7: Canada and the UK. It also includes five members of the G20: the UK, India, Canada, Australia and South Africa. It has huge global significance and huge potential and also has the advantage of being a group of countries that are friendly, in most cases, including many with deep reserves of key natural resources. It is absolutely disgraceful that we in the United Kingdom are not seeing the Commonwealth as somewhere to which we should be reaching out. Ultimately, we should be establishing a Commonwealth free trade area. That would, of course, mean examining our relationship with the European Union, but our relationship with some of the large Commonwealth countries will be much more important in the long term. I therefore ask the Minister to mention the word Commonwealth in his response and say something about it just to show the Commonwealth countries that we care and that in this year of the diamond jubilee Her Majesty and this Parliament consider the Commonwealth to be worthy of discussion.
	Having been quite critical, let me now say something nice about the International Development Secretary. The Department for International Development has been doing a very good job indeed and I want to mention in particular the work it has been doing in
	Zimbabwe, which has been terrifically important and useful. This covers so many of the issues that other Members have been discussing such as getting books into schools and has been a terrific opportunity for us to be sure that we are doing our bit for the education of children in what was once a fantastically well-educated country, despite all the issues there. I hope that until there are free and fair elections there we will continue to do our bit to ensure that primary schoolchildren have the opportunity to read and have an education.
	I was very moved by the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who I know had another engagement to attend. I, too, was at St Paul’s yesterday to hear the Dalai Lama. I am a member of the all-party group on Tibet and I was very disappointed that although the thousands of Chinese students in this country were mentioned in the Government’s introduction to the debate, not a word was said about the Chinese Government’s human rights record and the appalling way they have treated not only the Tibetans but people in many other parts of China. The difference between what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford said about Palestine and the terrible things she saw and what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East said about Tibet is that at least the media can still get access to the refugee camps and Palestine. Yes, that is difficult but they and parliamentary delegations can get in, whereas it is incredibly difficult to get into Tibet these days. It has become a closed country to anyone who is not seen as absolutely supporting the Chinese regime.
	Our Government should be speaking out more about this issue. We should be forming alliances with other countries and not allowing China to get away with what it is doing just because it is such a huge and economically powerful country.
	When China was selected to host the Olympics, everyone said, “It’s going to make such a difference. China is going to change. It will change its human rights record and start freeing prisoners.” Have we seen any changes in China since the Beijing Olympics? I have seen nothing that has made a difference, and the fact that the Olympics were held there has certainly not made any difference to the brave Tibetans who are trying so desperately not just to have a free Tibet, but to be allowed to practise their culture and their religion. What has been happening there is shocking, and I hope that the Minister will make some reference to that.
	Our Government have done some very good things through their foreign policy. I am delighted that they are opening up some of our embassies in parts of the world that were closed. I am pleased that they have made a decision that the UK flag must take precedence over the European Union flag. That is just a tiny little change, but it is very important and I welcome it. I pay tribute to our many ambassadors all over the world who do such a good job, trying to ensure that the United Kingdom’s voice is heard in those countries and that we stand up for the values that this country represents.
	Finally, please, please would Ministers and shadow Ministers stop referring to Britain, Britain, Britain. We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If I hear the Prime Minister say once more, “Britain is this” and “Britain is that”, I am going to get
	very cross indeed. We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain excludes Northern Ireland; Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

Angela Smith: There has been a consensus across the House tonight, so it is odd that I should follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) in commenting on the European Union. It is at this point, perhaps, that the House may diverge from the consensus.
	I want to concentrate on economic policy in the context of the economic crisis affecting the eurozone. This Queen’s Speech—this legislative programme—says more about the state of a crumbling coalition than anything else. We are facing a growth and jobs crisis, yet there is not one proposal in the speech that will tackle the problems that we face. Of course we know why the legislative programme is so thin. It is because, as we know, on many fundamental points the two parties in the coalition do not agree. For example, they have major disagreements on Europe, civil liberties and constitutional reform. Let us be clear. This is a Government who, after only two years, have pinned their colours—both of them—to the mast of austerity and have run out of ideas.
	There is no doubt that we are in difficult times, probably the most difficult that the country has faced for many decades, but there is no doubt in my mind who is to blame, and that is this Government. When they came to power in 2010, growth was evident in the economy, unemployment was stable, and the economy, although fragile, was recovering from the massive shock of the world economic crisis of 2008. Since then we have seen growth all but vanish, choked off by a Government who cut too far and too fast.
	To make matters worse, the eurozone seems determined to follow the same path, the path of austerity, the path that refuses to recognise that there is a huge problem with demand in the economies of Europe. The attitude of taking the medicine, taking the pain, no matter what, is the prevalent attitude, and Europe seems intent on executing a dance of death, with austerity piled on austerity. Europe’s leaders have told us that the only way out of the current crisis is through massive spending cuts and tax rises, and when that does not work, more cuts and more tax rises—more cuts in pensions, with punishing measures being imposed on countries in desperate straits, such as Greece and Portugal.

Angela Smith: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. We are clearly not all in it together. Rather than cutting VAT, which would help the economy, we have tax cuts for the very rich.
	Yes, I have to acknowledge that the latest growth figures indicate that the eurozone has avoided a technical recession, but let us not get carried away with one set of
	figures. Let us note that it is higher than expected growth in the German economy that has kept the eurozone out of recession, with many other members of the eurozone still in recession. In fact, most of the other members of the eurozone are still in recession. Let us remember that this is a Germany that, as one of the most productive countries in the world, has been able to take advantage of the eurozone to boost exports, but which has pursued a policy of not expanding its domestic economy, and even now, it is not moving on that front, even when it is now clear to everybody that demand in Europe is a key problem. If anything, these latest figures amplify the unbalanced nature of the eurozone, with a strong country such as Germany forcing unbearable austerity and massive debt on the weaker southern countries, in an attempt to make them as competitive as the north—a difficult task even in good times and, I fear, an impossible one in a weak global economy with rising unemployment across the eurozone and the Greek economy 20% smaller than it was at the start of the crisis.
	This Queen’s Speech is woefully inadequate in the context of what is happening to our country and across Europe. The medicine is not working, yet all we get from our Chancellor is the accusation that it is all the fault of the eurozone and that Chancellor Merkel should stop speculating on what will happen to the euro. No, the problem is not the musings of Chancellor Merkel; the problem is the damage her policies are inflicting on the eurozone, and, equally, the damage our Chancellor’s policies are inflicting here at home. So much for an export-led recovery. The Chancellor must rue the fact that his own prescriptions for economic health are backfiring at home and abroad.
	Clearly, we need to identify an alternative approach, and the Queen’s Speech should have built on the experience of Obama’s stimulus legislation in the United States. That package of tax cuts, infrastructure investment and job creation has worked. The US is growing economically and unemployment is falling, from 10% in 2009 to 8.2% in 2011, with independent forecasts in the US showing that the ongoing impact of the stimulus package will be positive. I was in the US recently and it was clear, talking to independent forecasters, think tank personnel, pollsters and commentators across the board, that the stimulus package has worked. The figures prove it; they are undeniable. It is astounding that Europe is making the same mistakes that it made in the 1930s. If America can learn from that, why cannot we?
	We needed to see in the Queen’s Speech an acknowledgement that austerity is not working and a commitment therefore to measures designed to stimulate the economy. Labour’s fair deal on tax and its fair deal on jobs would have been a good start. We needed to see a focus on demand rather than supply, and we needed to see that commitment accompanied by an acknowledgement that it is no good standing on the sidelines, sniping at our key economic partners in the eurozone, blaming them for all Britain’s woes. In the end, the problems that we all face are being worsened by the same paltry remedies, which destroy growth and jobs. We needed to see the Prime Minister commit himself to a change of course, and to working within the EU, with figures such as new French President
	Hollande, to encourage that change of course with the eurozone itself. Only then will there be any hope of growth, any hope of the kind of recovery that will allow trade to flourish, and, yes, any hope for Britain’s exports to flourish as part of that growth. There is no point having a Prime Minister who stands on the sidelines having walked away from the table. We are part of Europe and need to play our part within Europe.
	Finally, we needed the Queen’s Speech to acknowledge that the economic crisis is beginning to polarise Europe politically and socially. Across Europe, we see the rise of political parties outside what is usually understood as the mainstream and away from the pragmatic centre, particularly in relation to the debate on EU policy and the eurozone. In Greece, one of those parties holds the balance of power. In Holland, opinion polls show a huge rise in support for the anti-European Socialist party. In France, one in five voters in the presidential election voted for the Front National. In Britain, the vote for the UK Independence party in the local elections grew: in Sheffield it got 12,000 votes, only 10,000 behind the Liberal Democrats.
	That is worrying on one level, because it demonstrates that we are not immune from this worrying polarisation away from mainstream politics in Europe, a trend that reflects social unrest and the deep concerns felt by voters everywhere about their future. We must listen to voters—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on this—and to what people are saying in Europe. They are beginning to tire of austerity, which they no longer believe is working. They are saying the same in Germany, and they are saying it in Greece, France and here, too.
	The future does not look bright. Who knows what will happen politically and socially in Europe, including the UK, if Governments do not recognise the need to change course? The Queen’s Speech should have charted a new economic course and recognised that job creation, decent housing and decent public services for all are essential if we are to avoid a worsening of our economic and political situation. The fact that it did not bodes ill for us all, and I for one fear for the future.

Andy Slaughter: Today is the 64th anniversary of Nakba, the catastrophe that saw the ethnic cleansing of 50% of Palestinians from historical Palestine with the formation of the state of Israel. I am pleased to follow my very good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), and to endorse his comments about the situation in the occupied territories. Nakba is not just an historical event. As the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish said, Nakba is
	“an extended present that promises to continue in the future.”
	That is not only true of major events such as the occupation following the 1967 war, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila in 1982, and Operation Cast Lead in 2009; it is to do with the day-to-day suffering and oppression of the Palestinian people.
	Earlier this afternoon, I had the privilege of listening to the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock)
	about Palestinian child prisoners. She rightly noted two positive moves in the past 24 hours: the communiqué from EU Foreign Ministers that condemned settlement expansion and home demolition, and the end of the hunger strike by 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and the concessions that led to that. However, those two events also demonstrate the lengths that Palestinians must go to in order to secure redress for basic infringements of their human rights and of international law. They also demonstrate that words, even from the EU—a powerful organisation—will be ignored by Israel unless they are backed by action.
	Since the occupation, 40% of the adult male population of Palestine and the occupied territories have been detained in Israeli jails. There are currently 6,000 Palestinians detained in Israeli jails, including 200 children, 330 people in administrative detention—that is, without charge—and 28 MPs. I entirely support the impassioned comments that Members have made about the detention of the former Ukrainian Prime Minister, but 28 Palestinian MPs are being detained in Israeli jails, in most cases since 2006, and in many cases without charge.
	Many people are detained in appalling conditions in solitary confinement in 2 metre by 2 metre cells, with just a bed and a bucket, for 23 hours a day for up to 10 years. That includes leaders of the Palestinian people—people such as Marwan Barghouti, who was put into solitary confinement last month. He is tipped to be a future President of Palestine. I think of the way that the British treated people like Kenyatta and Gandhi. My conclusion is that unless there is a level playing field and unless one is prepared to negotiate with those who will form the future Palestinian leadership, there is no chance for the peace process. One has to ask, therefore: what is the future of the peace process? Does Israel want a peace process?
	There is a new Israeli Government. We are told that they will have the confidence not to be enslaved to the ultra-religious minorities. Their first act was to have the confidence to once again refuse a freeze on settlement building, because they have such a large majority. Why is settlement building such an important precondition to negotiations? Of course, at the level of principle, the 500,000 Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem and the west bank need to be negotiated away. To increase on a logarithmic scale, as is happening at the moment, the number of settlers and the extent of the settlements while negotiations are going on is surely wrong. Surely that is wrong practically, because there is no incentive for Israel, while it is getting what it wants—the Judaisation of East Jerusalem and the west bank—to conclude the negotiations.
	The settlements are not just the nice red-roofed settlements that are sometimes advertised for sale in this country; even the outposts that are now illegal under Israeli law are now being legitimised. Settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank has gone up by 144% in two years. Home demolitions are on the increase, with some 176 Palestinian homes being demolished in the first three months of this year. Bedouin villages are being wiped out, not only in the west bank, but in Israel itself.
	I do not have time to talk about Gaza, but I suspect that the Minister knows the statistics on Gaza and knows that it is the world’s largest prison. Imports may get in, in limited amounts, through tunnels and checkpoints,
	but no exports come out. The unemployment and poverty in Gaza will not be alleviated until the entrepreneurial people of Gaza, whom I have visited many times, are allowed to grow and export their own goods.
	The Government operate a double standard on this issue and refuse to recognise the Palestinian state. They have another chance to do so in the General Assembly, which I hope they will take. Israel should be supported and should be a friendly country, but it should not be given a special or privileged status. I read in the Jewish Chronicle two weeks ago about the support that the Israeli Government gave Argentina during the Falklands war, supplying weapons for use against British troops. I never quite understand, therefore, the special relationship that Governments of both parties think that they have with the Israelis, to the exclusion of the Palestinians.
	In the short time I have left, I will talk briefly about two other issues. The first is Bahrain. At the end of the week, the King of Bahrain will arrive in the United Kingdom and be entertained, inter alia, by the royal family. Like the grand prix and the Bahraini Prime Minister being invited to Downing street, this lends respectability to a tyrannical regime. The majority of the population in Bahrain is in lockdown. Murder, torture and detention without charge continue, following the popular uprising last spring. And yet, the Foreign Secretary talks about the improving situation. I wish that he would talk more about the detention without charge of people such as Nabeel Rajab, the president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights. I wish that the Government would revoke the invitation to the King of Bahrain.
	Finally, I wish to say a word about Egypt, which I do not think the Foreign Secretary mentioned, although it is the leading country in the Arab world. The situation there is grave. The presidential elections might be postponed because of the trouble that is occurring. I looked at the Amnesty International briefing for this debate, which states:
	“Human rights violations continue to take place in Egypt, in some cases to a worse extent than under Mubarak. Military trials continue, reports of torture being used are frequent, freedom of expression is curtailed and peaceful demonstrations have been met with violence and repression.”
	We need to take a strong economic and political interest in what is happening in Egypt. There are strong progressive forces there, and one easy thing that the Government could do to support them would be to co-operate in the extradition of criminals from the Mubarak regime who are walking about freely in London and in the freezing of hundreds of millions of pounds of their assets in London or Britain. Switzerland froze the assets of the Mubarak family within hours of his standing down, but it took us about six weeks. Despite repeated attempts, I have been unable to get either the Foreign Office or the Home Office to confirm what action they are taking.
	I very much appreciated what the Foreign Secretary said about the Government’s continuing support for, and confidence in, the Arab spring, but they need to go further than words. They need to support popular and democratic forces in the middle east both economically and politically. They may be in Palestine, Egypt or Bahrain. Let us not just take the easy option and condemn Gaddafi and Assad; let us be even-handed across the piece.

Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend is right and makes her point extremely well.
	Eliminating world hunger and helping get 67 million children to school can be driven through global leadership, which we could have shown by taking advantage of the cross-party consensus and legislating for 0.7% of gross national income to be spent on international aid from 2013. That would have resonated around the world, to the benefit of us all in the developed and developing worlds.
	Let me deal with other matters. I welcome the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. I and other hon. Members have urged action on the matter for some time. As Alex Godfrey of the North Lincolnshire branch of the National Farmers Union writes,
	“thank you for your help on the groceries code adjudicator. Finally it was in the Queen’s Speech! I was really pleased to hear that complaints from third parties will be allowed.”
	Alex puts his finger on a key issue, and I will keep my eye on it as the Bill progresses to the statute book. The Government need to provide the adjudicator with the powers to ensure a fair deal across the supply chain. That means an adjudicator with the power to investigate the claims of trade associations or whistleblowers, and to penalise companies that breach the code.
	Sadly, the welcome for the grocery adjudicator is more than outweighed by the disappointment felt by the woman in her 80s who rushed to see me last week because she was so downhearted and dispirited by rumours that the reform of adult care and support was to be delayed. Thirty years ago, her son had an accident that left him severely paralysed. He is strong willed, intelligent and resilient and so, despite his disabilities, he managed to continue to make a contribution to society. However, he needs full-time, round-the-clock care, which his mother provides. She has done that with no support forthcoming from the state. Uncomplaining and determined, she was nevertheless distressed to learn that the Government were putting the reform of adult care and support on the backburner—on the “too difficult” pile.
	Another local woman writes movingly of her experience of supporting her mother, who suffers from dementia:
	“What I want to know is which agencies are out there for us to call on to support us to care for our Mum. It doesn’t seem right that an adult as vulnerable as my Mum is not under the care of a social care or mental health team or a Memory Clinic. I don’t care whether she has dementia or Alzheimer’s or not. What I do care about is that her needs are not being met.
	I have no desire to take any of the individual services to task. I just want to move forward in a positive way with caring for my Mum and know where to turn to receive the necessary support when problems arise. Surely there should be a clear sign-posting to people who like me find themselves in this stressful and difficult position. Where we have Sure Start we should also have Sure End…There is a desperate need for a service like this and this need will become greater.”
	Adult care and support is one of biggest challenges for us. We should not play politics with it, but we should all put our shoulder to the wheel and use our united, combined and determined efforts to find real solutions. A draft Bill is disappointing, but it is also an opportunity. The hopes and fears of many people throughout the land, with stories like those of the ageing mother with the paraplegic son, and the caring daughter with the severely ailing mother, are focused on us all. We owe it to them to step up to the plate.
	The issues in the Gracious Speech about which people have contacted me are therefore international aid, the grocery adjudicator and adult care and support. However, what most people wanted and talked to me about was absent from it. Where is the plan for jobs and growth? Where is the industrial policy that manufacturing areas like Scunthorpe badly need? Where are the plans to help energy-intensive industries such as the steel industry? Sadly, the Business Secretary was right that the Government have “no compelling vision” to address those issues.
	Like my constituents, I am underwhelmed by the Government’s programme for the forthcoming Session. It is a missed opportunity, a damp squib and a disappointment.

Peter Aldous: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. In an effort to rebalance the economy, the seaside and the seaside towns—the marine economy—is in many respects the hidden jewel of the British economy and we do not make enough of it. Therefore any initiatives that help us to realise the marine economy’s full potential are to be welcomed.
	As well as helping the town centre, a redeveloped railway station can play an important part in supporting other industries that are important to Lowestoft’s future— tourism and energy. Lowestoft Central station is within walking distance of the town’s two beaches, which have just had their Blue Flag status reconfirmed. Inland are the Norfolk and Suffolk broads. The two railway lines serving Lowestoft, the East Suffolk line from Ipswich and the Wherry line from Norwich, are themselves tourist attractions passing through attractive countryside, along the Suffolk coast, through the water meadows and alongside the waterways of the broads. It is so important that the journey’s end should be in keeping with the rest of these special journeys.
	The station is also close to two of the areas that form part of the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone, which came into operation on 1 April. The enterprise zone is focused on the energy sector, both oil and gas and offshore renewables. In the case of the latter, Lowestoft occupies an important strategic location as the port that is closest to some of the largest proposed offshore wind farms—SSE’s Galloper and Gabbard development and Scottish Power’s and Vattenfall’s East Anglian Array.
	Already wind farm developers and supply chain companies are looking either to increase their presence in the area or to move into the town. A smart station as part of a good rail service will play an important role in attracting them and jobs to the area. The station in its current form and appearance provides no help in attracting such inward investment.
	Significant improvements to the local rail network are now taking place, and if they are to realise their full potential, it is important that we have stations that are attractive in appearance and provide customers with the facilities they need. Work is currently taking place on the Beccles loop on the East Suffolk line which will lead later this year to a resumption of an hourly service from Lowestoft to Ipswich; indeed, I understand that the construction of the loop was completed this past weekend. That work is welcome and the service should prove popular, but Lowestoft Central in its current state will be a let-down to many passengers, and I fear that at present it does not pass the test in terms of appearance, facilities and services on offer.
	Other improvements have taken place as well, including the new passenger lift at Ipswich station, which will make it easier for travellers to connect with ongoing services to and from London Liverpool Street and further afield on Crossrail, which will improve access in and around London and to Heathrow, thereby helping to address the challenge of physical isolation that has held back the Lowestoft economy in recent years. In due course it is important that the through service from Lowestoft to Liverpool Street is resumed, but that is another debate for another day.
	A further consideration to have in mind is that bus services in and around Lowestoft are being improved. Suffolk county council, with sustainable transport fund finance, is putting on a new circular bus route, serving the main employment areas and tourist destinations. The bus will stop at the station, as does the 601 service that runs down the coast to Kessingland and Southwold. To ensure that the investment in these services is successful the area around the station needs to be looked at closely to ensure that it is laid out in a way that enables the station to play a full role as a transport interchange and hub, not only for buses but also for taxis, and with the necessary facilities for the disabled, the elderly and the infirm.
	The case for redeveloping Lowestoft station is a strong one that satisfies the most rigorous of cost-benefit analysis. I anticipate that the feedback I may get from the Minister, although I do not wish to prejudge his response, is that this is a good idea but there is no money available and I will need to take my place in that good old British institution of the queue. I shall now set out a suggested way forward and the support that I would like the Government to provide.
	First, we need to consider future franchising arrangements. Abellio, which is now operating as Greater Anglia, took on a 29-month franchise in February of this year. That runs until July 2014. The new franchise needs to be in a form and of a nature that encourages both good management of the property and investment in it. A longer-term franchise would help secure this investment from the operator, who should also be given full control and responsibility for the management of the whole station and all its surrounds.
	As I mentioned earlier, much of the surrounds of Lowestoft station are at present untidy and strewn with litter. Part of the problem is that no one party, neither Network Rail nor Greater Anglia, are ultimately responsible for its upkeep; it is a shared liability. The result is that no one takes full responsibility. There is nowhere for the buck to stop. In essence, a full repairing lease needs to be granted to the rail operator so that it is fully responsible for keeping the station and its surrounds in both good repair and tidy in appearance. This is a role for the train company and not Network Rail, which should concentrate its efforts on its core activity of being responsible for the track and larger category A stations, such as King’s Cross and Birmingham New Street. Smaller stations, such as Lowestoft, should be the responsibility of train operators, which are better attuned to local needs and demands and will have more of an incentive to provide a smart station that will help attract customers.

Peter Aldous: I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. He is quite correct. As I said, railways have a key role to play in reinvigorating the parts that perhaps other means of transport do not get to.
	Secondly, I would look to all interested parties to get together as a local delivery group to produce a blueprint of how the station should be redeveloped. I have in mind not only Greater Anglia and Network Rail, but also Suffolk county council and Waveney district council. The latter has just appointed two project managers to help promote regeneration of this area of Lowestoft and they can take the lead in this work. The chamber of commerce, the new Anglia local enterprise partnership and the town centre partnership, which recently submitted the Portas pilot bid, should also be involved, and there should be an opportunity for the public to have their say. I would welcome the Minister’s support for such an initiative and confirmation that he will encourage Network Rail to participate fully and proactively.
	Once it has been agreed how the station should be redeveloped, we need to think creatively about funding. The national stations improvement programme has had great success in completing projects, leveraging in private funding and delivering schemes that provide a real dividend for local communities. It has been such a success that all the funds for the period to 2014 have been spent. Given that success, I ask the Minister to lobby the Treasury for additional funds in the autumn statement and next year’s Budget for the continuation of the scheme.
	We also need to consider other sources of funding, such as the coastal communities fund and the regional growth fund, and how best to leverage in private investment. A possible way forward with the latter might be the granting of sub-leases to restaurants, newsagents and other shops, for example, which as part of their financial
	commitment would pay rent at a lower level and agree to carry out capital improvements to a particular part of the property.
	As a chartered surveyor, I was taught at a very early stage in my career that there are three factors that determine the success or failure of a redevelopment scheme: location, location and location. Lowestoft Central station occupies a unique location; it is the most easterly station in Britain, at the heart of the town’s main trading and retailing area and situated close to two of its most important industries—energy and tourism. I believe that the scheme could produce an attractive return, by bringing more people into Lowestoft, creating a feel-good factor and helping to provide and underpin jobs. I hope that the Minister and the Government will work with the people of Lowestoft to achieve that goal at the earliest possible opportunity.